GMOs 101.1: Pesticides, Roundup and Monsanto

Are We Really Ready for Roundup?

Though genetically modified organisms (GMOs) were intended to help feed the world, few people realized the impact they would eventually have on the environment. Much is still unknown about the harm that GMOs can do, but here are three things that we know for sure.

1. GMOs create superweeds

In the 1970s, Monsanto created the pesticide glyphosate under the name “Roundup,” along with glyphosate-resistant, or “Roundup Ready,” seeds. Since genetically modified (GM) crops now require pesticides, Roundup has been sprayed heavily since the crops were introduced into the US food supply. A report by the organic center shows that farmers applied an additional 318 million pounds of pesticides in the first 13 years GM crops were grown in the US.

Extensive Roundup use has created 21 strains of glyphosate-resistant weeds. These “superweeds” spread rampant throughout fields, causing a huge problem for farmers. The only way to fight superweeds is through more pesticides, creating a never-ending cycle. Pesticides not only harm the environment, but the need for greater use will also continue to push small farmers out of business, creating even more poverty.

2. GMOs harm species

Pesticides, herbicides and insecticides don’t stop at the plant. They are also found in the air, soil, and water, and they impact many species in their path. Though insecticides are meant to kill harmful insect species, they also kill beneficial species like fungi, butterflies, earthworms and lacewings that help farmers pollinate plants, recycle nutrients to the soil, and control pests.

When pesticides, herbicides and insecticides run off into waterways, they pollute the water, creating low-oxygen “dead zones” where species cannot survive. The largest dead zone in the US is off the coast of Louisiana and Texas in the Gulf of Mexico. Dead zones have become significantly worse over time, and this has left a huge impact on fishing communities that depend on these waterways.

3. GM crops can contaminate non-GM crops

GM crops can contaminate non-GM crops through cross-pollination and a number of other gene transfer methods. The more contamination occurs, the more likely it will be to occur in the future. The unintentional spread of GM seeds will aggravate environmental hazards and can lead to mislabeling of GM foods as organic.

In May 2013, the USDA announced that a strain of Monsanto’s Roundup Ready wheat was mistakenly found on an Oregon farm. The USDA has not yet approved any GM wheat for commercial use, but they allowed Monsanto to test the strains in over 100 field tests from 1998 to 2005. It is impossible to know how much of the tested GM wheat has penetrated other farms.

To Label or Not to Label?

The hottest topic regarding genetically modified organisms (GMOs) today is the labeling debate. Our country, not surprisingly, is divided on the issue: while some believe all products containing GMOs should be labeled, others see labeling as costly and unnecessary.

Advocates of GMO labeling believe that consumers should have the right to know what’s in their food. The government requires labels for nutrition facts, ingredients, and allergy information, so why not GMOs? 64 countries including China, Russia, and all of the EU already require labeling, as shown by this map by the Center for Food Safety. How is it that the US has fallen so far behind?

Those against labeling argue that scientists and the FDA have deemed genetically modified (GM) foods safe for consumption, so there is no reason to bother labeling (as we know, the same cannot be said for environmental impacts). They argue that labeling is expensive, and that the cost will fall on consumers and taxpayers. Furthermore, many argue that labeling adds an unnecessary level of government bureaucracy.

During 2012’s California’s election, Proposition 37, which would have required labeling for all GM foods in California, created some serious buzz about GMO policy. In the months leading up to the election, supporters of Prop 37 put up an impressive fight. Videos like OMG GMOs! and Right to Know: Vote Yes on Prop 37, both created by Food and Water Watch, circulated the Internet raising awareness about the issue.

No matter how strong the arguments for Prop 37 were, advocates were unable to compete against the resources of big food companies. In the months leading up to the election, the food industry spent more than $45 million dollars fighting Prop 37. Monsanto alone spent more than $8 million. In “Prop 37 take home lesson: the power of money in politics,” Marion Nestle describes just how influential these companies were. As soon as their television ad campaigns began, she writes, the polling results shifted dramatically in favor of not labeling.

Though Prop 37 did not pass, the labeling conversation is only beginning. Since the election, more and more states have expressed interest in GMO labeling. This has instilled fear in big food companies who fought against labeling in California, because these companies cannot afford to continue the anti-labeling fight in every state. Also, if GMO labeling passes in some states but not others, manufacturers would need to create separate food labels for different states, which would be tremendously expensive.

As a result, many of the big food companies who are responsible for the hyper concentration of our food system have actually begun to publicly support labeling. In January, representatives from 20 of the biggest names in food, including Wal-Mart, General Mills, PepsiCo, and Coca-Cola met with the FDA to discuss the issue. This has been a huge step forward, and I can’t wait to see what happens over the next few years.